Roboflow

Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite vs Gemini 3.6 Flash

Compare Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite and Gemini 3.6 Flash side-by-side. See how these vision models stack up in Image Captioning, Open Prompt, Classification, Object Detection, and OCR.

Compare Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite vs Gemini 3.6 Flash live

Run the same image across every model that supports a task and compare their outputs side-by-side.

Detect and compare bounding boxes across models on the same image.

Open Object Detection in the full playground
GoogleGemini 3.5 Flash-Lite
Run to compare this model.
GoogleGemini 3.6 Flash
Run to compare this model.

Models in this comparison

Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite vs Gemini 3.6 Flash on Vision Evals

Gemini 3.6 Flash scores higher on 5 of the six Vision Evals tasks.

The widest gap is Reasoning, where Gemini 3.6 Flash leads 80.1% to 48.3%.

Overall, Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite averages 69.6% (#14 of 25) against 83.1% (#4 of 25) for Gemini 3.6 Flash.

Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite is both cheaper ($0.0014 vs $0.0063 per sample) and faster (2.7s vs 4.7s per sample).

Gemini 3.5 Flash-LiteGemini 3.6 Flash

Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite vs Gemini 3.6 Flash Comparison Table

Evals updated August 6, 2026Pricing updated August 11, 2026

PropertyGemini 3.5 Flash-LiteGemini 3.6 Flash
OrganizationGoogleGoogle
Categoryclosedclosed
Modalitymultimodalmultimodal
Release DateJul 2026Jul 2026
Context Window1.0M1.0M
Parameters
LicenseProprietaryProprietary
Pricing per 1M tokens
Input $/1M$0.300$1.50
Output $/1M$2.50$7.50
Vision Tasks
CaptioningDemoDemo
Chart Question Answering
ClassificationDemoDemo
Document Question Answering
Image Tagging
Multi-Label Classification
Object DetectionDemoDemo
OCRDemoDemo
Video Classification
Vision Language
Visual Question AnsweringDemoDemo
Model Features
Foundation Vision
LLMs with Vision Capabilities
Multimodal Vision
Vision Evalsground-truth scores across 6 vision tasks, pooled at low effort
Overall
69.6%
83.1%
Avg cost / sample$0.0014$0.0063
Avg speed / sample2.70s4.73s
By task
Object Detection
57.5%
$0.0023
56.0%
$0.0083
Counting
52.7%
$0.0007
82.4%
$0.0065
Identification
81.3%
$0.0004
96.9%
$0.0030
OCR
87.4%
$0.0011
88.4%
$0.0050
Data Extraction
90.7%
$0.0004
94.8%
$0.0030
Reasoning (low)
48.3%
$0.0012
80.1%
$0.0062
Reasoning (high)
68.9%
$0.0042
80.1%
$0.017

Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite vs Gemini 3.6 Flash: Overview

Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite

Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite is a natively multimodal reasoning model developed by Google DeepMind, released on July 21, 2026 as part of the Gemini 3.5 model family. It is the fastest model in the 3.5 series, designed for both low-latency tasks and high-throughput production workloads such as agentic search, document processing, receipt translation, and large-scale data extraction. The model accepts text, images, audio, and video as inputs, with a context window of up to 1 million tokens, and produces text output. It supports configurable thinking levels, allowing developers to tune the balance between response quality, cost, and latency depending on workload requirements.

On agentic and coding benchmarks, Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite significantly outperforms its predecessor, Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite, including on Terminal-Bench 2.1 (54% vs. 31%), GDM-MRCR v2 long-context (72.2% vs. 60.1%), and real-world task execution as measured by GDPval-AA v2 (1140 vs. 642). It also surpasses Gemini 3 Flash on SWE-Bench Pro (54.2% vs. 49.6%) and OSWorld-Verified (74.0% vs. 65.1%). According to the Artificial Analysis Index, the model generates output at approximately 350 tokens per second. It is built on the Gemini 3.5 Flash foundation and is evaluated across reasoning, coding, multimodal understanding, multilingual performance, and long-context tasks. The model is developed under Google's Frontier Safety Framework.

Gemini 3.6 Flash

Gemini 3.6 Flash is a multimodal language model from Google DeepMind, positioned as the workhorse tier in the Gemini 3.x family. It accepts text, image, video, audio, and PDF inputs with a 1 million token context window and produces up to 64,000 output tokens. The model builds directly on Gemini 3.5 Flash, incorporating developer and customer feedback to improve token efficiency, coding quality, and knowledge work performance. According to the Artificial Analysis Index, it consumes 17% fewer output tokens than its predecessor, and on some benchmarks such as DeepSWE, token reduction reaches up to 65%. It supports function calling, structured output, search as a tool, and code execution, and includes computer use as a built-in capability in the Gemini API and Gemini Enterprise.

On coding benchmarks, Gemini 3.6 Flash scores 49% on DeepSWE versus 37% for 3.5 Flash, and 63.9% on MLE Bench versus 49.7%. Computer use performance on OSWorld-Verified improves from 78.4% to 83%, and knowledge work scores on GDPval-AA v2 rise from 1349 to 1421. The model carries a knowledge cutoff of March 2026 and ships with enhanced Frontier Safety safeguards covering chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear, and cyber offense domains, with training to minimize refusals for beneficial uses. It is a proprietary, closed-weights model available in preview through the Gemini API via Google AI Studio, Android Studio, Google Antigravity, Gemini Enterprise, and the Gemini app.

Frequently Asked Questions

On Roboflow's Vision Evals, Gemini 3.6 Flash performed better. It scores higher on 5 of the six vision tasks and averages 83.1% (#4 of 25) against 69.6% (#14 of 25) for Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite. These scores measure vision capabilities only; either model may perform differently on work outside this benchmark's tasks.

No. On the Vision Evals Reasoning benchmark at low effort, Gemini 3.6 Flash leads with 80.1% against 48.3%. This is the widest gap between the two models across the benchmark's tasks.

Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite is cheaper to run. Across Roboflow's Vision Evals task mix it averaged $0.0014 per sample against $0.0063. Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite is priced at $0.30 per 1M input tokens and $2.50 per 1M output; Gemini 3.6 Flash is priced at $1.50 per 1M input tokens and $7.50 per 1M output. Actual costs depend on your image sizes, prompts, and output length.

Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite is faster. Across Roboflow's Vision Evals it averaged 2.7s per inference against 4.7s. Latency varies with image size, prompt length, and provider load, so treat these as relative rather than guaranteed figures.

Yes. The comparison demo on this page runs both models on the same image side by side for image captioning and open prompts in the free Roboflow Playground. You can try it instantly, and a free account unlocks unlimited runs.